8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

1/12

This article was downloaded by: [202.67.43.45]On: 05 February 2015, At: 00:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science

EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Creationism as a Misconception: Socio-

cognitive conflict in the teaching of 

evolutionColin Foster a

a School of Education , University of Nottingham , Nottingham ,

UK

Published online: 29 May 2012.

To cite this article: Colin Foster (2012) Creationism as a Misconception: Socio-cognitive conflictin the teaching of evolution, International Journal of Science Education, 34:14, 2171-2180, DOI:

10.1080/09500693.2012.692102

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.692102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents,and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versions of published

Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge OpenSelect articles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-partywebsite are without warranty from Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressedor implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability, fitness for aparticular purpose, or non-infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in this articleare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor & Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions 

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.692102http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.692102http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09500693.2012.692102http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

2/12

It is essential that you check the license status of any given Open and OpenSelect article to confirm conditions of access and use.

8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

3/12

Creationism as a Misconception:

Socio-cognitive conflict in the teaching

of evolution

Colin Foster∗

School of Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK 

This position paper argues that students’ understanding and acceptance of evolution may be

supported, rather than hindered, by classroom discussion of creationism. Parallels are drawn

between creationism and other scientific misconceptions, both of the scientific community in the

past and of students in the present. Science teachers frequently handle their students’

misconceptions as they arise by offering appropriate socio-cognitive conflict, which highlights

reasons to disbelieve one idea and to believe another. It is argued that this way of working, rather

than outlawing discussion, is more scientific and more honest. Scientific truth does not win the

day by attempting to deny its opponents a voice but by engaging them with evidence. Teacherscan be confident that evolution has nothing to fear from a free and frank discussion in which

claims can be rebutted with evidence. Such an approach is accessible to children of all ages and

is ultimately more likely to drive out pre-scientific superstitions. It also models the scientific

process more authentically and develops students’ ability to think critically.

Keywords:   Creationism; Evolution; Socio-cognitive conflict; Misconceptions; Classroom

discussion

For a biologist, the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.Peter Medawar

Introduction

Recent controversy over the teaching of creationism in UK secondary schools has

been bitter (Williams, 2008). The debate has been every bit as heated as that over

the truth or falsity of creationism, or so-called ‘intelligent design’, itself (Pennock,

International Journal of Science Education

Vol. 34, No. 14, September 2012, pp. 2171–2180 

∗School of Education, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham

NG8 1BB, UK. Email: c@foster77.co.uk

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/12/142171–10# 2012 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.

This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided

the original work is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way, is

permitted. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.692102

8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

4/12

2003). Holliman and Allgaier (2006) and, more recently, Allgaier (2011) argue that

the media have played a significant role in influencing the course of public debate.

The resignation from the Royal Society in 2008 of Michael Reiss, professor of edu-

cation at the Institute of Education in London and a Church of England clergyman,

following a speech which was widely misinterpreted, highlights the sensitivity of theissue (Baker, 2010). Although in his speech Reiss had described creationism as

having ‘no scientific basis’, his suggestion that it might be debated in science class-

rooms went too far for many of his peers (Sample, 2008). At the time of writing, a

group of 30 scientists, including David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins, ‘have

called on the government to toughen its guidance on the promotion of creationism

in classrooms, accusing “religious fundamentalists” of portraying it as scientific

theory in publicly funded schools’ (Butt, 2011).

While the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution is at least as compelling as

that for any other major widely-accepted scientific theory (such as the atomic theory,

for instance), it is still the case that many cling to creationist dogma (Berkman &

Plutzer, 2011; Bloom, 2009). In the USA, creationism is still tacitly believed by a

large proportion of students, including biology majors (Moore & Cotner, 2009),

and, despite claims to the contrary, it is far from being a uniquely American

phenomenon (Numbers, 2010), even among science teachers (Kim & Nehm,

2011). There are strong social pressures on young people to accept the perspective

promoted by parents and religious leaders in the community, and there is much

active distortion in various media aimed at supporting a creationist agenda

(Dawkins, 2007).

Although Reiss (2009) prefers to see it as a ‘worldview’, the predominant categor-isation of creationism by scientists is as a misconception. For example, Alters and

Nelson (2002) describe ‘religious and myth-based misconceptions’ as:

concepts in religious and mythical teachings that, when transferred into science

education, become factually inaccurate. Two such misconceptions are that organisms

do not have common descent and that the Earth is too young for evolution (and most

geological processes) to have occurred. (p. 1895)

Nevertheless, calls for creationism not to be discussed in the classroom dis-

tinguish it from other scientific misconceptions which students may bring to their

science lessons (Gil-Perez & Carrascosa, 1990). It is as though creationism is justtoo explosive to entertain. Yet in this position paper, I want to suggest that this

could be a mistake. Perhaps by attempting to censor creationism (Petress, 2005)

we risk inadvertently raising its status in students’ eyes and hindering its exposure

as a falsity, making it easier for opponents of evolution to portray themselves as

an attacked minority and the theory of evolution as some kind of conspiracy

(Moore, 2007, p. 26). If creationism cannot be talked about in science lessons, it

will be talked about elsewhere instead—the playground, the canteen, the religious

studies classroom, the home, the church—where it is unlikely to be challenged as

effectively as it might be by a scientist (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000;Moshman, 1985).

2172   C. Foster 

8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

5/12

Socio-Cognitive Conflict

One of the most well-established pedagogical techniques for dealing with scientific

misconceptions is the deliberate creation of socio-cognitive conflict (Perret-Clermont,

Carugati, & Oates, 2004). This occurs when a student’s way of thinking is confronted

by experiences (‘anomalous data’) that do not fit in with their current understanding

(Limón, 2001). The teacher’s intention in doing so is that students will react by

re-constructing their mental map, reconfiguring it to accommodate the new infor-

mation. However, challenges to deeply held long-standing beliefs may be experienced

as threatening and, when this is too significant, cognitive conflict can lead to entrench-

ment rather than belief change. Realistically, a single conversation or lesson is unlikely

to move a student from outright rejection of evolution to cheerful acceptance, and

stages such as uncertainty, peripheral belief change and belief decrease may be

regarded as educationally positive steps towards an eventual acceptance of the

theory (Kang, Scharmann, & Noh, 2004). von Glasersfeld (1995, p. 187) commentswith regard to physics teaching that ‘It is  . . . rather naive to expect that one demon-

stration in class will induce students to give up a “misconception” which they have

found useful in their ordinary lives’ and compares this resistance to change with

that shown by the scientific community when cherished ideas have been challenged

by evidence. An initial conversation might merely sow some seeds of doubt leading

to later conceptual change (Cobern, 1994; Lawson & Worsnop, 1992; Sinatra, South-

erland, McConaughy, & Demastes, 2003).

Cultivating in students a disposition to think critically is a vital part of a science

education (Driver et al., 2000). As Siegel (1989, p. 25) comments, ‘In order to be

a critical thinker, a person must have . . .  certain attitudes, dispositions, habits of 

mind, and character traits, which together may be labelled the “critical attitude”

or “critical spirit”’. However, although Pennock (2002, p. 28) concedes that

‘there is some merit in the idea of considering the creation/evolution controversy

as a case study to develop critical thinking’, suggesting that at university level this

could be practicable, he argues that at high school too much knowledge is required:

‘It takes a semester-long college course just to give undergraduates an introduction

to evolutionary theory, and one needs at least that much background to be able to

begin to judge the evidence for oneself’ (p. 28). If this is correct, it is problematic,

since we are therefore expecting students to accept evolutionary theory without pos-sessing sufficient knowledge to see the inadequacies of creationism—thus taking on

trust from their science teachers that evolution is correct. I once heard a strident

atheist student say that it was ludicrous to believe that the earth was only 6,000

years old when science had shown conclusively that it was in fact 6 million years

old. He was closer by a factor of 1,000 but still almost 1,000 times out, suggesting

that he had perhaps merely exchanged one mantra for another, with limited real

scientific understanding. We cannot regard young people as scientifically literate

merely because they know some important scientific facts—they need to be able

to make evidence-based scientific judgments for themselves (DeBoer, 2000;Oulton, Dillon, & Grace, 2004).

Creationism as a Misconception   2173

8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

6/12

The common advice in creative writing to ‘show not tell’ is equally applicable to

science demonstrations; thinking adults are more readily persuaded of a conclusion

when they see it themselves rather than when it is foisted on them (O’Brien, 1991).

Students should dismiss creationism because they   see  that it is absurd, not because

they are   told  that it is, and it is not necessary to study biology at a highly advancedlevel in order to do this. Dawkins (2010) most ably presents evidence that can be

understood by anyone of any age who takes the trouble to examine it. If there is

not time in school science lessons for scientific evidence of the kind he presents,

then something is very wrong pedagogically. It does not take a PhD in biology to

see the problems with creationism and that there is overwhelming evidence that the

earth is nearly a million times older than creationists claim. This can be understood

by young children. In a similar manner, several authors have found highly effective

ways of debunking pseudoscience for a lay audience, and there may be much that

science teachers can learn from the techniques of popular science writing and broad-

casting (Goldacre, 2008; Singh, 2008). If science students merely accumulate correct

facts without participating in the process of  concluding  that they are correct, they are

likely to acquire a warped perspective on what science is all about (Sandoval, 2005).

As Spencer (1910) comments:

To tell a child this and to show it the other, is not to teachit how to observe, but to make it a

mere recipient of another’s observations: a proceeding which weakens rather than

strengthens its powers of self-instruction—which deprives it of the pleasures resulting

from successful activity. (p. 102)

Teaching about the errors of creationism can help students to understand the char-acter of scientific inquiry better, both in and beyond the context of evolution (Pond &

Pond, 2010). It might be thought that students are too young to make complex judg-

ments for themselves, but this overlooks the fact that they are inevitably doing so con-

stantly, both in and out of school (King & Kitchener, 2004). It is the science teacher’s

role to encourage development of this vital skill (Oulton et al., 2004). To expect stu-

dents to suspend their critical faculties in school and become passive recipients of gen-

erally accepted wisdom would be the very antithesis of science.

It might be felt that answering students’ questions is one thing but   planning   to

discuss creationism is deliberately introducing a misconception into the classroom

and wasting valuable time on falsity. On the contrary, I would argue that theprocess of distinguishing truth from error is the whole business of science, and to

spend classroom time on doing so is exactly what science education should be

about. Such a journey involves examining numerous pieces of evidence, all of 

which are factual, and considering how they can be best explained. This is not to

elevate creationism to the status of an alternative competing theory—there is no com-

petition; categorising it as a misconception is more appropriate—but the facts that

support the theory of evolution simultaneously expose the errors of creationism. It

is not unusual for a science teacher to choose to deliberately introduce false ideas

in other scientific topics. Some examples of ‘discarded science’ would be the idea of phlogiston in combustion, of the luminiferous ether in the transmission of 

2174   C. Foster 

8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

7/12

electromagnetic waves and of the flat earth in earth sciences (Grant, 2006). A science

teacher might even choose to adopt a devil’s advocate stance, placing students in the

role of combating the teacher’s points:

When you burn a candle, it weighs less afterwards, not more, doesn’t it?

How can a wave travel through ‘nothing’? What would be doing the ‘waving’?

If the earth were a ball, the people on the bottom would fall off, wouldn’t they?

Most science teachers will have been confronted by students who have encountered

conspiracy theories on the internet, such as the idea that the moon landings were fake,

and may be skilled at turning such conversations to educational advantage (Bowdley,

2003). Science teachers frequently see part of their role as debunking pseudoscience,

and might, for instance, discuss the dilution difficulties of homeopathy in connection

with Avogadro’s number (Martin, 1994) or the absurdities of astrology in connection

with astronomy. In all of these cases, real scientific learning is produced through inter-

action with false ideas.

It might be objected that science teachers do not have the expertise to address reli-

gious views in the classroom, yet in the history of science it has always been necessary

for scientists to challenge superstition and false ‘common sense’ arguments. When

teaching Newton’s laws of motion, for example, it could be seen as a missed opportu-

nity not to contrast these with popular ‘impetus’ and Aristotelian notions of ‘force’,

and it is not necessary to be a scholar of Greek philosophy to do so (Gilbert & Zyl-

bersztajn, 1985; Nersessian, 1989). (Important links might also be made to theories

that were yet to be established, such as special relativity and quantum mechanics.)

Scientific observations and theories inevitably stand in opposition to alternatives,and it is reasonable to expect science teachers to locate them in such contexts. Con-

fronting clashing ideas is not unique to science teaching, and science teachers may

benefit from some of the ‘softer’ approaches used by teachers in other disciplines.

Ross (2007), writing with a completely different curriculum area in mind, comments:

The teacher needs to engage in discussion: to be provocative, to be a chair who permits

dissent, who puts forward views . . . listening to others, putting forward evidence and

arguments, allowing people to differ, picking up and elaborating points of similarity

and difference. This includes putting cases that challenge the children’s views—if necess-

ary making it clear that they are not your views—in a way that allows the class to respond,

to rebut, and to challenge them. (p. 125)

Modern-day scientific controversies, such as those over the nature of dark matter or

the role of string theory or the nature of consciousness, can also be naturally engaging

for students if handled skilfully (Oulton et al., 2004). Although there is no controversy

among knowledgeable scientists over the truth of the theory of evolution today, there

was a time when an honest scientist could be unsure. Likewise, even up to the late

nineteenth century, a scientist could argue against the atomic theory (Brock &

Knight, 1965). Such historical scientific disputes can be a natural way of coming to

see how the scientific community has embraced something which initially may have

seemed unlikely or counterintuitive, and the historical process of accumulating and

Creationism as a Misconception   2175

8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

8/12

connecting evidence may even mirror students’ individual experiences of developing

their scientific understanding (Wandersee, 1986).

Conclusion

It is just as important in science to teach the negatives as it is to teach the positives:

students need to know what is not  true as well as what is. (On a mundane level, pre-

paring students for good-quality distractors in multiple-choice science assessments

highlights the necessity of this [Haladyna, Downing, & Rodriguez, 2002].) It is

naı̈ve to suppose that what is not mentioned in science lessons will be assumed to

be false. To be in favour of discussing creationism in science lessons is not to be in

favour of   promoting   it; on the contrary, creationism’s demise will inevitably follow

from its careful examination. Should the Holocaust ‘be taught’ in history lessons?

Should eugenics ‘be taught’ in biology? To teach about these topics does not implythat they are good  or  correct  (Brown & Davies, 1998). Many of the debates concerning

whether creationism should ‘be taught’ implicitly invoke a transmission model of 

teaching, in which the teacher is passing on facts to the students, who are accepting

them on trust. Thus, to ‘teach’ something is to imply that it is true or valid. By con-

trast, a constructivist paradigm (Cobb, 1994) might be envisaged as placing the

responsibility on students to make sense of the evidence and judge for themselves

what makes scientific sense. From this perspective, creationism as a case study can

be seen as an opportunity for learning real science.

For a student to believe in evolution because they have been told by their teacher thatit is true is not much better than believing in creationism because they have been told by

their pastor that it is true. Although evolution happens to be right, the belief of such stu-

dents is simply an acquiescence to authority, little different in character from a religious

belief. Although they know a true fact, they know it for the wrong reason. As Russell

(2006, p. 74) writes of the Greek philosophers, ‘By good luck, the atomists hit on a

hypothesis for which, more than two thousand years later, some evidence was found,

but their belief, in their day, was none the less destitute of any solid foundation’.

Duschl and Osborne (2002) argue that students should be given:

the opportunity to consider  plural  theoretical accounts and the opportunity to constructand evaluate arguments relating ideas and their evidence  . . . Not to do so will leave the

student reliant on the authority of the teacher as the epistemic basis of belief leaving

the dependence on evidence and argument—a central feature of science—veiled from

inspection. (pp. 52– 53)

Believing in the right thing for the wrong reasons is not a minor problem: students

who do take evolution ‘on trust’ might be presumed to be more vulnerable to being

talked out of it at some future point than those who feel the weight of evidence for

themselves. Science students should be discouraged from believing  anything  which

they have not been honestly persuaded of, by evidence and argument (hence The

Royal Society motto ‘On the word of no one’). Otherwise, we may appear to win theevolution issue in our classroom today but leave students vulnerable to more

2176   C. Foster 

8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

9/12

charismatic individuals that they may meet in the future, who may undermine all our

good work. With regard to misconceptions generally, von Glasersfeld (1995, p. 187)

points out that ‘Telling [students] that they have to change their ideas because they are

not “true”, may create obedient lip service but does not generate understanding’. A

disinclination to believe anybody’s theory, even ours, unless it is supported by convin-cing evidence, is a much better legacy to leave students with, and will ultimately direct

them towards the truth in  all  areas, not just evolution.

Research

A number of research questions remain, which can be settled only by empirical evi-

dence from the classroom:

(1) Does frank and free evidence-based discussion of creationism in the classroom

incline students towards evolution or simply entrench creationist ideas? Whatskills does the teacher need to use in order to help students to benefit scientifically

from such discussions?

(2) How much background knowledge of biology is necessary for students to engage

meaningfully in such debates? Can this approach be effective in high school or not

until university level?

(3) Does discussion of creationism in the classroom assist in undermining creationist

‘conspiracy theory’ viewpoints, as compared with classrooms where it is a ‘no-go’

area, or does it merely lend it an unwarranted status in students’ eyes?

(4) How might the teaching styles used in the classroom affect the robustness of stu-dents’ resulting beliefs? For instance, are students who, through discussion, have

come to their own conclusions in favour of evolution less easily talked out of it by

friends, family or religious leaders than those who have simply taken evolution on

trust from their teachers? It would be interesting to see how easy or difficult it is to

talk good science students out of their belief in a less controversial area (e.g.

atomic theory) and to probe how this might relate to the teaching methods used.

(5) In what ways can teachers support students who are convinced by the scientific evi-

dence for evolution but afraid to admit so? How might students be helped pasto-

rally to deal, for instance, with being ostracised for taking a scientific position on

this issue? Would students be more inclined to go with the evidence if they could

see that the social consequences of their changing sides could be ameliorated?

(6) How might the answers to all of these questions depend on students’ prior beliefs

and the social-cultural context of the school? Unlike many other scientific mis-

conceptions, creationism is being vigorously promoted from many directions,

so the degree and kind of background exposure is likely to be highly significant.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the editor and reviewers for very helpful comments on an earlierdraft of this paper.

Creationism as a Misconception   2177

8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

10/12

References

Allgaier, J. (2011). Who is having a voice? Journalists’ selection of sources in a creationism contro-

versy in the UK press.  Cultural Studies of Science Education,  6,  445–467.

Alters, B.J., & Nelson, C.E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education.  Evolution,

56, 1891–1901.Baker, S. (2010). Creationism in the classroom: A controversy with serious consequences.  Research

in Education,  83(1), 78–88.

Berkman, M.B., & Plutzer, E. (2011). Defeating creationism in the courtroom, but not in the class-

room. Science,  331, 404–405.

Bloom, P. (2009). Religious belief as an evolutionary accident. In J. Schloss & M.J. Murray (Eds.),

The believing primate: Scientific, philosophical, and theological reflections on the origin of religion

(pp. 118–127). Oxford: University Press.

Bowdley, D. (2003). Hollywood goes to the Moon: The greatest hoax of them all?  Physics Education,

38 (5), 406–412.

Brock, W.H., & Knight, D.M. (1965). The atomic debates: ‘Memorable and interesting evenings in

the life of the chemical society’. Isis,  56 (1), 5–25.Brown, M., & Davies, I. (1998). The Holocaust and education for citizenship: The teaching of 

history, religion and human rights in England.  Educational Review,  50 (1), 75–83.

Butt, R. (2011, September 19). Scientists demand tougher guidelines on teaching of creationism in

schools.  The Guardian. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from  www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/

sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schools

Cobb, P. (1994). Constructivism in mathematics and science education.   Educational Researcher ,

23(7), 4.

Cobern, W.W. (1994). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim,

CA. Retrieved January 17, 2012, from  www.wmich.edu/slcsp/SLCSP124/SLCSP-124.pdf 

Dawkins, R. (2007).  The god delusion. London: Black Swan.Dawkins, R. (2010).  The greatest show on earth: The evidence for evolution. London: Black Swan.

DeBoer, G.E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings

and its relationship to science education reform.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching ,  37 (6),

582–601.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in

classrooms.  Science Education,  84(3), 287–312.

Duschl, R.A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science

education.  Studies in Science Education,  38 (1), 39–72.

Gilbert, J.K., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1985). A conceptual framework for science education: The case

study of force and movement.  European Journal of Science Education,  7 (2), 107–120.

Gil-Perez, D., & Carrascosa, J. (1990). What to do about science ‘misconceptions’.  Science Edu-

cation,  74,  531–540.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995).   Radical constructivism: A way of learning (Studies in mathematics edu-

cation). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Goldacre, B. (2008).  Bad science. London: Fourth Estate.

Grant, J. (2006). Discarded science: Ideas that seemed good at the time . Surrey: Facts, Figures and Fun,

an imprint of AAPPL Artists’ and Photographers’ Press Ltd.

Haladyna, T.M., Downing, S.M., & Rodriguez, M.C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-

writing guidelines for classroom assessment.   Applied Measurement in Education,  15,  309–334.

Holliman, R., & Allgaier, J. (2006). The emergence of the controversy around the theory of evol-

ution and creationism in UK newspaper reports.  Curriculum Journal ,  17 (3), 263–279.

Kang, S., Scharmann, L.C., & Noh, T. (2004). Re-examining the role of cognitive conflict in science

concept learning.  Research in Science Education, 34(1), 71–96.

2178   C. Foster 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schoolshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schoolshttp://www.wmich.edu/slcsp/SLCSP124/SLCSP-124.pdfhttp://www.wmich.edu/slcsp/SLCSP124/SLCSP-124.pdfhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schoolshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schools

8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

11/12

Kim, S.Y., & Nehm, R.H. (2011). A cross-cultural comparison of Korean and American science tea-

chers’ views of evolution and the nature of science.  International Journal of Science Education,

33(2), 197–227.

King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the develop-

ment of epistemic assumptions through adulthood.  Educational Psychologist ,  39 (1), 5–18.

Lawson, A.E., & Worsnop, W.A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in specialcreation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commit-

ment.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching ,  29,  143–166.

Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A

critical appraisal.  Learning and Instruction,  11(4–5), 357–380.

Martin, M. (1994). Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education.  Science & Education, 3,

357–371.

Moore, R. (2007). The history of the evolution/creationism controversy and likely future develop-

ments. In L.S. Jones & M.J. Reiss (Eds.),  Teaching about scientific origins: Taking account of crea-

tionism (pp. 11–30). Oxford: Peter Lang.

Moore, R., & Cotner, S. (2009). The creationist down the hall: Does it matter when teachers teach

creationism? BioScience,  59 (5), 429–435.Moshman, D. (1985). A role for creationism in science education. Journal of College Science Teaching ,

15 (2), 106–109.

Nersessian, N. (1989). Conceptual change in science and in science education.   Synthese,   80,

163–183.

Numbers, R.L. (2010). Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Harvard: Harvard

University Press.

O’Brien, T.J. (1991). The science and art of science demonstrations. Journal of Chemical Education,

68 (1), 933–936.

Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M.M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial

issues. International Journal of Science Education,  26 (4), 411–423.

Pennock, R.T. (2002). Should creationism be taught in the public schools?  Science and Education,11, 111–33.

Pennock, R.T. (2003). Creationism and intelligent design.  Annual Review of Genomics and Human

Genetics,  4,  143–163.

Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Carugati, F., & Oates, J. (2004). A socio-cognitive perspective on learning

and cognitive development. In J. Oates & A. Grayson (Eds.), Cognitive and language development 

in children (pp. 305 –332). Oxford: Blackwell.

Petress, K. (2005). The role of censorship in school.   Journal of Instructional Psychology,   32(3),

248–252.

Pond, F.R., & Pond, J.L. (2010). Scientific authority in the creation–evolution debates.  Evolution:

Education and Outreach,  3(4), 641–660.

Reiss, M.J. (2009). The relationship between evolutionary biology and religion.   Evolution,   63,1934–1941.

Ross, A. (2007). Political learning and controversial issues with children. In H. Claire & C. Holden

(Eds.),  The challenge of teaching controversial issues  (pp. 117–129). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham

Books.

Russell, B. (2006).  History of western philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge.

Sample, I. (2008, September 16). Reiss resigns over call to discuss creationism in science lessons.

The Guardian. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from   www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/16/

michael.reiss.resignation

Sandoval, W.A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on

learning through inquiry.  Science Education,  89 (5), 634–656.

Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking, and science education.  Synthese, 80,

9–41.

Creationism as a Misconception   2179

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/16/michael.reiss.resignationhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/16/michael.reiss.resignationhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/16/michael.reiss.resignationhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/16/michael.reiss.resignation

8/9/2019 09500693.2012.692102.pdf

12/12

Sinatra, G.M., Southerland, S.A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J.W. (2003). Intentions and

beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution.  Journal of Research

in Science Teaching ,  40,  510–528.

Singh, S. (2008).  Trick or treatment?: Alternative medicine on trial . London: Bantam.

Spencer, H. (1910).   Education: Intellectual, moral, and physical . London: Williams and Norgate.

Wandersee, J.H. (1986). Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students’ mis-conceptions?  Journal of Research in Science Teaching ,  23,  581–597.

Williams, J.D. (2008). Creationist teaching in school science: A UK perspective.   Evolution: Edu-

cation and Outreach,  1,  87– 95.

2180   C. Foster